AOk, you are giving the impression that you do not intend to debate in good faith. This may be because of you lack of knowledge of the areas under discussion. Perhaps this will improve but if it doesn't it may be that you don't belong in the science threads at all.
Oh it's not? I'm sorry mr. science "know it all". Please do tell me how you would like me to prove this scientifically? I was under the apparently false assumption that NOTHING was provable in science. I was just going by what scientist themselves say, but of course, you may know better. This is what some of them say....
The expression "burden of proof" is a common phrase. It refers to proof in the logical sense not the sense applied in the example you gave. This is an example of where you go off track because you have such limited understanding of the context in which you are working.
Who claimed that "God created" is scientific. I certainly didn't.
Then do not bring God into a science thread.
It is faith based. The faith is founded on evidence. Some of that evidence is historical documents, prophecies fulfilled, miracles performed and documented, testimonies of eyewitnesses, archeology, and much of the evidence is also scientific.
Perhaps you should supply a clear definition of how you are using the word "faith" since it appears you have a non-standard definition here.
What makes you think that this forum is only for science discussions? Claims do not just have to be scientific claims. This forum is entitled "Intelligent Design". That may or may not be "scientific" by definition. Discussion of God is certainly not scientific.
Here is another example of where you don't understand the context in which you are working. The whole reason that "Intelligent Design" was invented was to show that it was scientific. It's proponents specifically claim that it is not about God. It has suddenly become less popular because it was shown that they have been lying.
The forum you are in is explicitly to be about scientific discussions. If you don't like that then stay in the other side of EvCforum.
I thought science was supposed to be unbiased. I would think that an equally logical conclusion would be that nature was irrelevant. Why must God be irrelevant?
Could you explain the logic in this statement. You compare something that we have evidence for the existence of to something we don't.
The definitions of nature and science have changed over the years. Todays definition of nature elliminates the supernatural. That just makes Nature equal to God. I like simple math.
Silly, childish little statements like this are another example of where you don't appear to intend to carry on an honest discussion. If that is the case you should stop posting to the science forums.